Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[TerraDave]

He does seem to be going somewhere with these...

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Minimalist D&D)

 

[TwoSix]

It's getting hard to avoid the idea that Mike isn't just free associating.

I do like the idea, though. Feats or backgrounds or aspects apply modifiers to ability checks, which are the core of all your actions.

If they are considering such a system, I hope they move away from the d20 as the only die used. It make sense for some subsystems with a lot of randomness like combat, but it makes a little sense that a character with Str 10 could ever beat a character with Str 20 on a task of pure physical ability. Basically, different types of tasks should use different dice.

Although maybe that should be a higher notch on the complexity dial.

 

[delericho]

A couple of months ago, he declared that D&D gamers clearly preferred big, complex systems, and now he's talking about minimalist D&D?

(And what I find most frustrating about all of that is that I definitely prefer a rules-medium system - both 3e/PF and 4e are too complex for my tastes, but I also don't want something too simple. For me, SWSE pretty much hit the sweet spot dead-on.)

What I like about the current model (and even more the 3e/PF model) is that there is a distinct divide between a characters 'innate' capabilities (ability scores), and the training he has put in various things (skill ranks, feats, and the like). Thus, the character's ability scores absolutely influence your final modifiers/totals, but they don't determine them - and are, in fact, a fairly minor component next to training.

Mike's proposed system would seem to negate that - if you're stuck with a low-Str at 1st level you're going to suck at Athletics... and you're always going to suck at Athletics.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I think Mearls' example of using a constitution check for a poison saving throw is interesting, but it doesn't take into account the character's level of experience. A 1st level character with a high constitution would be harder to poison than a 20th level character with a low constitution. That seems backwards.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Would it be possible to simplify D&D to a more minimalist 'Basic' edition that would still work with the current math (and thus be semi-compatible with normal 4e)? That is, without just moving the complexity around.

For example, if in Basic 4e you:

• Used full Ability Score as modifier.
• Kept separate Ability modifiers, but doubled them.
• Used full level instead of half level.

How far off the expected math would that take us?

 

[TwoSix]

I think Mearls' example of using a constitution check for a poison saving throw is interesting, but it doesn't take into account the character's level of experience. A 1st level character with a high constitution would be harder to poison than a 20th level character with a low constitution. That seems backwards.

Or makes sense, depending on what level of proficiency or power you want level to model.

 

[TerraDave]

I think all these posts are a journey...who knows were...but they don't really stand alone.

He is saying you could play in a minimalist style...not that you should. You should be able to control complexity, so that if you want more elaborate skills or defenses/saves, well, then you get those.

Somehow.

 

[AeroDm]

I think Mearls' example of using a constitution check for a poison saving throw is interesting, but it doesn't take into account the character's level of experience. A 1st level character with a high constitution would be harder to poison than a 20th level character with a low constitution. That seems backwards.

I think the idea was that 4e progression mechanic (1/2 level) would be added straight to your stats, so the 20th level guy would still tend to be better.

Despite that, I still think it is a bit short sighted. His proposal would certainly streamline the character sheet but at the expense of speed of play. If you only have the six stats and then powers/feats provide all modifiers, that means you have to search your sheet every time and add all the little odds-and-ends to calculate your score. Eventually, some player is going to realize that instead of calculating his score against attacks by adding his Dexterity + his ineffable dodge ability + his shield, he should just write it down on his sheet... maybe call it armor class. The reason we "bring in sub contractors" is because they come up often enough that it is worth putting them on salary.

 

[rounser]

Instead of trying to invent a better mousetrap for the umpteenth time, why don't they focus on consolidating, editing, re-presenting logically and balancing a prior edition? Imagine a balanced, unified, streamlined AD&D or 3E, with all the splat designed to work together and "knowing the existence of each other" from the start. In other words, an actual new edition rather than a whole new game masquerading as a new edition.

No-one else can do this but WOTC. It's a headscratcher why they just sit on this IP goldmine and release yrthaks, digesters, razorfang bloodthunderers and the like in place of better monsters that are in their inventory from prior editions. Same with spells and magic items. The "turns victim inside out and sends them through hell" spell sounds like it's from another game in some Hellraiser genre, rather than D&D. Why bother with flavor like that when there's better ideas already around?

We got a hint of what this can be like with Hackmaster 4E; because the spells and monsters were released in one big chunk, rather than over many years, the spell components that could be drawn from monster parts was all organised, making it look like a unified game in this respect rather than a hodge-podge.

In other words, maybe take off the rules mechanic designer cap, put on the editor cap, and actually produce a new edition of D&D rather than a new game, complete with new mechanics, obligatory new cosmology and new experimental critters in place of classic favorites.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Or makes sense, depending on what level of proficiency or power you want level to model.

Fair enough. However, making saving throws (or defenses in 4e) independent of level would be a radical divergence from the core assumption in all D&D editions that level is the primary indicator of a character's power. At that point, you not just changing mechanics, but one of the key underlying assumptions of the game.

If you changed that assumption, are you really still playing D&D? (of course, there is no right or wrong answer to that question, but it's one that any D&D game designer should consider carefully before making a change like this)